Real tale of Old School feel?

[Quasqueton]

And I stand by that review (including the detailed critique that you snipped). I said nothing in there that I didn't support with detailed examples from the module. And note that the "apology" was edited in before even one person had responded to the post.

Quasqueton

 

[Arnwyn]

I have never said any of the old modules were unfun, or that anyone who had fun with them was wrong for it.

Guess you should have avoided the 'crack' comment. You may not have meant anything by it, but you expressed yourself very poorly, and were called on it.

What I *have* said, though, was that some of the old modules were very badly designed.

Maybe people are misunderstanding you - in my eyes, every single older module suffered from bad design. Hell, they were old, and the concepts and processes in module writing were all new. However, this isn't news. People have admitted that "modules have come a long way". But really, this is blatantly obvious.

Because of how obvious this is, I think when people see someone pointing out that "these old modules are badly designed" (a completely superfluous statement), they take it as meaning "this is a bad module, and you are on crack if you like it".

What flabbergasted me in the Desert of Desolation thread was that so many people said that module was well *designed*, or one of the greatest in *design*.

Probably because these people recognize that not every module is 100% perfect... and that what you pointed out as poor design may not be for some people (I know I disagreed with half of your complaints). Regardless of what people try to say, there isn't any agreed upon (and wacky) notion of objectivity in module design, until you get to the extremes (which becomes valueless).

Everything else is down to taste? Let's take movies for example. By your statement, it's down to taste because it's entertainment. There's is no bad filmmaking (film design, if you will). A mic boom showing at the top? Down to taste. Actors changing for the same character during the movie (because original died)? Down to taste. Camera crew seen in a mirror? Down to taste.

Well, then it seems that you haven't spent a lot of time over at the movie forums here - because that's pretty much the consensus (as there has yet to be any agreement on what constitutes "objectively good filmaking" in the eyes of the audience/general public - the rest of your quote is simply pointing out the extremes, which is neither useful nor valid).

Everything else you said is pretty much nonsensical, as gizmo33 points out - the reviews page is valuable when one gets some information out of it, even if the reader disagrees with the reviewer's conclusion.

Show me these threads that started as edition wars.

You know, the number of threads that you have popping up about the "bad design" of previous editions (modules or otherwise) combined with that wacky thread in Meta you started a little while ago makes it seem to me that you have an agenda. You probably don't, but my perception is telling me otherwise.

 

[gizmo33]

Oh, so you missed my detailed critique of I3? I can understand, it was only 355 words. And the "drug-using habits" comment was a whole 4 words.
Quasqueton

Well the drug using comment actually made more sense to me - essentially: "You all must be smoking crack cocaine which would cause impaired senses/judgement and thus lead you to believe that I3 is a good module when it is objectively not."

So I can actually follow the cause/effect in that reasoning, which I unfortunately can't do for your other points - your earlier post let me know _what_ you don't like about I3. But I can't figure out why you think those features of the module are important enough that they'd get in the way of you being able to run it. IMO they're fairly minor features of the dungeon - and in many cases a reasonable explanation is pretty easy to come up with in the few instances where you would have to.

For example - it's plausible to me that a +1 warhammer would be laying in a dungeon passageway - and in fact I've probably had PCs dump +1 warhammers in the middle of dungeons in the past - and other PCs have certainly ignored similar objects that they've come across (fearing a curse or whatever). So for you to say that such a thing is "nonsense" is incomprehesible to me and IMO requires some explanation.

 

[gizmo33]

I said nothing in there that I didn't support with detailed examples from the module.

Yea, I don't know enough about your other posts to have an opinion about whether or not you have an issue with 1E. In fact I assumed, based on your name, that you did not. Other people are entitled to their opinions regarding your motives and such but I don't agree with them. I have (IMO) a more interesting objective of discussing/debating what makes a good adventure module.

What I did think you owed this debate though, was some explanation of what those examples that you cited really meant. You supported, with detailed examples, by saying "well, they put a sphinx in a room without telling me it's personal history." I'm trying to figure out why you think that's a bad thing. You stated many of these "examples" as if they were based upon universally understood principles - ie. people will just know why a war hammer laying in a dungeon is bad design without me having to explain it to them.

In fact, I'm a little taken back that you cite U1 as an example of a well designed module. Or B2 for that matter. Seems to me like it would be fairly easy to take those modules to task for the same issues that you bring up with I3 - and I find the settings of both (as a matter of taste) more mundane by far than I3. That information (U1, B2) did little to enlighten me as to your criteria for a good module.

 

[Quasqueton]

OK, I see. General, vague, and broad accusations without evidence; theories on secret agendas based on what folks think I mean rather than what I actually write; repeated points to a single sentence out of many hundreds posted in a month; misquoting and intentional rewriting of my actual text into absurd extremes -- this is apparently the standard operating procedures in response to *anything* I write, now. There is no way I can explain my thoughts better, and no way anyone will take anything I say in any way but how they have it in their heads what I'm supposed to mean.

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

Personally I think Castle Amber was a very well designed (and atmospheric) module, in both respects greatly superior to most 3e modules I've seen. It thoroughly deserves to be termed a classic. I don't recall using the amber heal-cloud myself, a bit metagamey, but that's a small point. The weirdness of Castle Amber clearly obeyed its own internal (weird) logic, which was part of what made it so much fun. I'm seriously considering running it again using C&C one of these days.

 

[S'mon]

Isn't Quasqueton's agenda "3e is the one true D&D. All others are pale imitations" or similar? AIR that was his sig for a good while.

 

[Arnwyn]

Isn't Quasqueton's agenda "3e is the one true D&D. All others are pale imitations" or similar? AIR that was his sig for a good while.

Beats me - I can only tell you what my perception is - and that would be it (and that's without ever seeing his sig - I have 'em turned off).

 

[gizmo33]

Quasquenton has started some very interesting threads about 1E, at least I count his series of "what were your experiences with module X" - so IMO I have nothing to say about his loyalty to one version or another.

355 words or not, I found his original critique to be somewhat lacking in a frame of reference that I understand. I can go point by point and say "why is that a bad thing."

For example:

I3 has bandits, some of whom are 2HD and others have 4 hp. So what? Why is that a bad thing? It seems Quasquenton has a reason but I can't figure out why it is. What HD should bandits be? Should they all be the same level? Do they even know what their own level is? Are they capable of detecting other bandit's level so they know who they should hang out with? Is it a case of "master bandit" and "apprentice bandit"? How does Quasquenton see these details as having a negative effect on the way he runs his adventures?

I've been able to get Q- to say very little about his reasons behind his original 355 word critique.

There is no way I can explain my thoughts better,

IMO, yes there is a way you can explain your thoughts better, as I've tried to explain in previous posts.

 

[Grazzt]

Isn't Quasqueton's agenda "3e is the one true D&D. All others are pale imitations" or similar? AIR that was his sig for a good while.

Could just lock him and Diaglo in a 10-foot pit and them fight it out.